Next Article in Journal
The Expression of Amino Acid and Fatty Acid Receptors Show an Age-Dependent Pattern Involving Oral Cavity, Jejunum and Lower Gut Sensing in Broiler Chickens
Previous Article in Journal
An Evaluation of the Supplementation of Rumen-Protected Lysine and Methionine on the Lactation Performance of Fall Parturition Grazing Holstein Cows in Southern Chile
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 13
Issue 19
10.3390/ani13193119
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Buffering Capacity Comparison of Tris Phosphate Carbonate and Buffered Peptone Water Salmonella Pre-Enrichments for Manufactured Feed and Feed Ingredients

by
Cesar Escobar
1,
Luis R. Munoz
1,
Matthew A. Bailey
1,
James T. Krehling
1,
Wilmer J. Pacheco
1,
Rüdiger Hauck
1,2,
Richard J. Buhr
3 and
Kenneth S. Macklin
4,*
1
Department of Poultry Science, College of Agriculture Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849, USA
2
Department of Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849, USA
3
USDA-ARS, US National Poultry Research Center, Athens, GA 30605, USA
4
Department of Poultry Science, College of Agriculture Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS 39762, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2023, 13(19), 3119; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13193119
Submission received: 11 August 2023 / Revised: 2 October 2023 / Accepted: 4 October 2023 / Published: 6 October 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Animal System and Management)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

This study compared two pre-enrichment mediums, tris phosphate carbonate (TPC) and buffered peptone water (BPW), for detecting Salmonella in animal feed. Samples (269) were collected from different feed mills and assessed for pH changes after a 24 h incubation. Different feed ingredients showed varying initial and final pH values. Meat and bone meal had higher final pH values in both TPC and BPW, while soybean and peanut meal had lower final pH values. BPW was more effective at recovering Salmonella and showed greater pH changes. Four Salmonella isolates were recovered from meat and bone meal samples, with BPW identifying more isolates. Overall, the study highlights the importance of choosing the right pre-enrichment medium for accurate Salmonella detection in animal feed.

Abstract

Various culture-based methods to detect Salmonella in animal feed have been developed due to the impact of this bacterium on public and animal health. For this project, tris phosphate carbonate (TPC) and buffered peptone water (BPW) buffering capacities were compared as pre-enrichment mediums for the detection of Salmonella in feed ingredients. A total of 269 samples were collected from 6 feed mills and mixed with the pre-enrichments; pH was measured before and after a 24 h incubation. Differences were observed when comparing pH values by sample type; DDGS and poultry by-product meal presented lower initial pH values for TPC and BPW compared to the other samples. For both TPC and BPW, meat and bone meal presented higher final pH values, while soybean meal and peanut meal had lower final pH values. Furthermore, for BPW, post cooling, pellet loadout, and wheat middlings reported lower final pH values. Additionally, most feed ingredients presented significant differences in pH change after 24 h of incubation, except DDGS. From meat and bone meal samples, four Salmonella isolates were recovered and identified: three using BPW and one using TPC. TPC provided greater buffer capacity towards neutral pH compared to BPW, but BPW was more effective at recovering Salmonella.

1. Introduction

Detecting particular microorganisms from specific sources is a problem, and proper consideration must be given to the influence of environmental factors prior to detection [1]. Exposure to freezing, heating, or freeze-drying negatively impacts attempts at detection and enumeration of some microorganisms because of physiologically weakened or injured cells [2,3,4]. Most bacteria face life-threatening and hostile conditions in their natural habitats, such as oxidation, heavy metals, DNA-damaging agents, osmolarity, starvation, weak acids, and a wide range of temperatures or pH values other than those required for optimal growth [5]. Standard cultural procedures for the isolation of Salmonella generally include pre-enrichment of samples in a non-selective broth medium, followed by enrichment in a selective broth medium, isolation by presumptive screening, and serological confirmation of presumptive isolates [6]. A pre-enrichment medium should not only be a noninhibitor for Salmonella growth but also be capable of supporting the proliferation of small numbers of these bacteria, especially in higher dilutions where potential nutritional or inhibitory substances from the food being tested have been diluted [7]. For example, according to the HIMEDIA® technical data sheet [8], BPW is a pre-enrichment medium intended to support the recovery of sub-lethally injured Salmonella before transfer to a selective medium. Pre-enrichment media contain no inhibitors, are well buffered, and offer conditions for resuscitation of cells injured by food preservation processes. According to the composition presented in the same data sheet [8], proteose peptone provides nitrogenous and carbonaceous compounds, long-chain amino acids, and vitamins (essential nutrients). Sodium chloride maintains the osmotic balance of the medium. Disodium phosphate and mono-potassium phosphate are soluble in water and provide a high buffer capacity, which prevents sudden drops in the pH of the solution.
The optimal temperature for Salmonella growth is 37 °C with a range of 5 to 47 °C, and the optimum pH is 6.5 to 7.0 with a range of 4 to 9 [9,10,11]. Animal feed is a potential source of Salmonella [12,13,14,15,16,17]. However, a low percentage of samples tested are reported as positive for Salmonella [14,16]. Production of animal feed in feed mills is usually in large quantities as bulk material in batchwise production; Salmonella cell numbers in feed are usually low and poorly distributed [18]. Maciorowski et al. [19] mentioned that it is crucial to provide injured and stressed Salmonella cells with an opportunity to recover and multiply in pre-enrichment and enrichment before their isolation from animal feed. However, its detection is very important since feed ingredients can be transmitters of Salmonella to manufactured feed and subsequently to live production; for example, poultry and products like eggs and meat would be potential sources of these bacteria [20,21].
Richardson et al. [22] observed that Salmonella exposed to pH ranging from 4 to 7 on xylose lysine tergitol 4 agar can lose its ability to produce hydrogen sulfide, and this effect was dependent on the pH, stress status, and serotype. It has also been reported that low pH alters the biochemical pathways of Salmonella [22,23]. Additionally, different researchers have reported that detection of Salmonella in feed during pre-enrichment or enrichment can be complicated by the level of background microflora in the sample; the higher the level of background microflora, the lower the recovery of Salmonella [18,24,25].
In 2015, Berrang et al. [26] tested the buffering capacity of pre-enrichment media with different concentrations of buffer components. They reported the use of 1.0% peptone water buffered with sodium chloride (NaCl), disodium phosphate (Na2HPO4), sodium phosphate (NaHPO4), 1 M tris pH 8, and sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) in different combinations. The combination “tris phosphate carbonate”, which was named TPC, presented the best buffering chemistry, having a pH drop at 24 h close to 6.5 in comparison to phosphate without Tris, which suffered a pH drop at 24 h close to 5.2. In another study, Richardson et al. [27] showed that TPC had the best buffering capacity, maintaining a near-neutral pH on a variety of ingredients and feed types during incubation among the five pre-enrichment media tested (lactose broth “LB”, buffered peptone water “BPW”, double-strength buffered peptone water “2 x BPW”, universal pre-enrichment broth “UPB”, and tris phosphate carbonate “TPC”). The buffer capacity of TPC was highlighted among other pre-enrichments; however, the samples were not tested for Salmonella by applying further steps like enrichment, plating in selective agar, an agglutination test, or biochemical confirmation.
BPW is the standard pre-enrichment used for the recovery of Salmonella. Based on the previous information, the aims of this study were to evaluate the buffer capacity of TPC and BPW using animal-manufactured feed and feed ingredients and to evaluate TPC as a pre-enrichment medium to recover and identify Salmonella serovars compared to BPW.

2. Materials and Methods

Samples were collected from 6 feed mills for this study (Table 1). Letters A, B, C, D, E, and F were assigned to them. Feed mills A and B belonged to integrators and produced feed for swine and poultry production, respectively. Feed mills C, D, and F were toll mills (providing custom milling, mixing, and blending services to other companies) intended for swine production, and feed mill E was a research and education mill. The samples collected (a total of 269) were ground corn, DDGS (distillers dried grains with solubles), wheat middlings, peanut meal, soybean meal, poultry by-product meal, meat and bone meal, and manufactured feed. The manufactured feed consisted of a post-mixing mash loadout and a post-cooling pellet loadout. Ground corn was collected from the ground corn silo, and the other feed ingredients were obtained from storage containers or directly from trucks/trains during unloading. Manufactured feed samples were collected during loadout from different batches and at specific intervals of time (every 2 min). Representative samples of approximately 150 g were placed into sterile Whirl-PakTM standard bags (Nasco®, Fort Atkinson, WI, USA) and stored in coolers or a refrigerator until they were ready to be shipped to Auburn University. Once the samples were at Auburn University, they were stored in a refrigerated cool room (4 °C).
The TPC formula (Table 2) was consulted with the authors of [26]. All solid components were added to a sterilized beaker along with 600 mL of deionized water and mixed. Then, 100 mL of 1 M Tris pH 8.0 was added along with deionized water to bring the final volume to 1 L. The pH of the TPC solution was measured and adjusted using drops of 6N hydrochloric acid (HCl) to reach a final pH of 8.0. Lastly, the TPC solution was sterilized using a Corning sterile filter system with a membrane pore size of 0.22 μm (Corning Incorporated, Corning, NY, USA). The initial pH of the BPW solution (BD Difco, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA) was 7.0.
From each feed sample, 2.5 g of sample was added to 22.5 mL of TPC and BPW in 50 mL polypropylene centrifuge tubes, vortexed with a VWR® vortex mixer for 30 s, and then incubated for 24 h at 37 °C. The initial pH (0 h) was measured with a VWR sympHony B10P benchtop pH meter (VWR Chemicals, Fountain Pkwy, OH, USA) after mixing, and the final pH (24 h) was measured after incubation. After incubation, 1 mL of the samples were transferred to 5 mL of tetrathionate brilliant green broth (HiMedia Laboratories, West Chester, PA, USA) in 15 mL polypropylene centrifuge tubes and incubated for 24 h at 37 °C. Thereafter, all the samples were streak-plated onto xylose lysine tergitol 4 agar (XLT4: CriterionTM, Hardy Diagnostics, Santa Maria, CA, USA) and incubated for 24 h at 37 °C for subsequent visual identification of typical black “fish-eye” Salmonella colonies associated with this medium. From the suspect Salmonella samples in the media agar, single colonies were transferred (streak plate) to another XLT4 plate and incubated. Next, after a second visual confirmation, a single colony was transferred to a Salmonella ChromoSelect agar (Sigma-Aldrich Corporation, St. Louis, MO, USA) and incubated for 24 h at 37 °C. With the visual confirmation in the ChromoSelect agar, a single colony from the plate was inoculated onto Triple Sugar Iron (BD Difco, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA), Lysine Iron agar (BD Difco, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA), and Urea agar slants (BD Difco, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA) and incubated for 24 h at 37 °C for biochemical confirmation.
From the same samples on the ChromoSelect agar, an agglutination test for serological confirmation was performed first using polyvalent serum A-Vi for Salmonella spp. (BD Difco, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA), and then, based on serology from Salmonella antiserum Poly Groups A, B, C, D, and E (Difco, BD) and antiserum B, C1, C2, D1, E, or K (BD Difco, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA), samples were serogrouped. Next, after agglutination testing, the isolates were shipped to the National Veterinary Services Laboratory in Ames, IA, for serovar characterization.
Data were analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model, Proc Glimmix (significant p ≤ 0.05), means were separated by sample type using Tukey’s HSD, and pH change in time (initial–final) was analyzed using a dependent (paired) t-test for each sample type in SAS® 9.4 software.

3. Results

3.1. pH Values

The average initial and final pH values of each feed type using both pre-enrichments are presented in Table 3. The initial pH of the samples with TPC was above neutral pH (~7.0), while the samples with BPW yielded mixed values. Conversely, the final pH (after 24 h of incubation) of the samples with TPC was in the range of 5.75 to 7.09, while the samples with BPW reported values below pH 6.5.
The samples tested for this study were not exposed to acidic pH environments at the laboratory, and the lowest pH values observed after incubation were 5.59 (soybean meal, using TPC) and 4.68 (peanut meal, using BPW), as shown in Table 3.
Differences were observed when comparing pH values by sample type (p < 0.001). For initial TPC pH, DDGS (6.98) and poultry by-product meal (7.60) presented lower pH values; moreover, for final TPC pH readings, meat and bone meal (7.77) presented the higher pH value, while peanut meal (5.75) and soybean meal (5.59) were lower compared to the other feed types. Initial BPW pH readings showed that DDGS (5.81) and poultry by-product meal (6.54) also presented lower pH values. Furthermore, for final BPW pH, meat and bone meal (6.45) presented a higher pH value; however, pellet loadout (5.05), post cooling (5.11), wheat middlings (5.15), and soybean meal (4.86) presented lower pH values. Richardson et al. [27] reported similar pH values after 24 h of incubation using TPC and BPW for meat and bone meal of 7.88 and 6.59, respectively.

3.2. pH Differences

The difference between initial and final mean pH values expressed in percentages using pre-enrichment media TPC and BPW is presented in Table 4. Wheat middlings, peanut meal, soybean meal, and manufactured feed, which includes pellet loadout, post cooling, post mixing, and mash loadout, presented a higher pH difference after 24 h of incubation, with a drop of at least 17% to 32% with both pre-enrichments.
Using a dependent (paired) t-test, highly significant differences (p < 0.001) were found in most of the feed ingredients but not DDGS. This means that the initial and final pH values were significantly different from each other for the mentioned feed samples. It is also important to note that DDGS samples maintained their pH after incubation, with a slight drop using TPC (6.98 to 6.91) and a slight increase using BPW (5.81 to 5.90).

3.3. Salmonella Detection

All the feed samples tested were negative for Salmonella, except for meat and bone meal. From the meat and bone meal samples, four were positive for Salmonella (Table 5), that is, three samples using BPW and one using TPC. The isolates were identified as Salmonella Oranienburg, S. Senftenberg, S. Agona, and S. Infantis. The initial and final pH for S. Oranienburg was 6.89–6.40, S. Senftenberg 6.89–6.45, and S. Agona 7.09–6.42 using BPW. Using TPC, the initial and final pH values for S. Infantis were in the range of 7.80–7.78.

4. Discussion

According to Jay [9], pH 6.5 is near the ideal pH range for Salmonella growth. Berrang et al. [26] reported a pH close to 6.5 after 24 h of incubation using TPC in standard broiler feed, highlighting the buffering chemistry capacity of this pre-enrichment. Richardson et al. [22] reported that the pH impact on Salmonella was dependent on the serotype and the stress status of the microorganism (liquid sample or dry sample). They showed that a pH of 4.85 was required to kill 50% of S. Typhimurium in a non-stressed or liquid state during 24 h incubation, while in a stressed state, a pH of 5.85 was low enough to kill 50% of the cells.
Richardson et al. [27] reported similar pH values after 24 h of incubation using TPC and BPW for meat and bone meal, with pH values of 7.88 and 6.59, respectively. In this study, the pH values were 7.77 and 6.45, respectively. Cox et al. [28] reported pH values of 4.3 for DDGS, 4.8 for ground corn, and 4.6 for wheat middlings after 24 h of incubation using BPW, which differs from the data presented here (5.90, 6.01, and 5.15, respectively). It is important to note that, like other feed ingredients, DDGS and wheat middlings are by-products that vary in composition since the raw material used can be from different varieties and different environmental conditions, and the techniques to obtain the mentioned by-products can be different [29,30]. Therefore, it would be challenging to compare such samples from different feed mills or regions. For example, DDGS can be obtained by two different techniques: dry grind processing and wet milling [31]. Wheat middlings are obtained by mechanical and pneumatic methods applied to separate endosperm particles from the germ and bran; as a result, several fractions in different amounts are obtained, such as screenings, bran, middlings, shorts, and red dog [32]. The pH values reported by Cox et al. [28] may differ because different sources of feed ingredients were used for their experiment.
Wheat middlings contain highly fermentable carbohydrates [33], peanut meal and soybean meal are excellent sources of protein [34,35], and finished feed is manufactured to ensure that the animal receives all the required nutrients and supplements [36]. Therefore, high bacterial activity (fermentation) was expected during incubation using non-selective pre-enrichments, resulting in lower final pH values. The common end-products of bacterial fermentation are lactic acid, formic acid, acetic acid, butyric acid, butyl alcohol, acetone, ethyl alcohol, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen, which together decrease the pH of the medium [37].
DDGS are a coproduct of ethanol-producing factories that utilize corn and wheat as raw materials that contain high levels of crude protein, oil, and fiber [38]. DDGS fiber is composed mostly of cellulose, hemicelluloses, lignin, and pectin, which are complex carbohydrates that are difficult to metabolize [39]. It is also known that DDGS are used as a fermentation feedstock, but pre-treatment methods are needed to break down the lignin impediment, which is recalcitrant to bacterial attack and can result in the release of inhibitory products for microbes [40,41]. DDGS also can contain sulfuric acid, which is used for the control of pH during ethanol fermentation and the cleaning process of bioethanol production [42]. Sulfuric acid can inhibit or even kill microorganisms, including bacteria and fungi, due to its strong oxidizing corrosiveness [43]. Perhaps the combination of the characteristics of DDGS affected the bacterial activity during incubation (degradation), resulting in almost no pH change.
However, it is unknown how severe the procedures (stressors) applied to the different feed samples before arriving at the laboratory, for example, drying of grains, milling, pelleting, rendering processes, or chemical treatments for by-products were. There is evidence that Salmonella serovars respond differently to sub-lethal stressors, and the surviving cells may present greater resistance to further treatments than untreated cells [44].
Several researchers state that the detection of Salmonella in feed during pre-enrichment or enrichment can be negatively affected by the level of background microflora [18,24,25].
It is not clear why BPW was more effective in recovering Salmonella for this study; however, according to these results, it can be suggested that higher pH values can interfere in the recovery of this bacteria. As mentioned before, the optimum pH range for Salmonella growth is 6.5–7.0 [10,11,27], and on average, all the meat and bone samples using TPC had initial and final pH values of 7.85 and 7.77, respectively.
The four serovars identified are common in poultry production and can cause foodborne illness in humans but do not cause sickness in poultry. However, poultry can act as reservoirs of these bacteria [45,46,47]. Meat and bone meal samples belonged to the same batch; however, the samples were taken from different locations on the same container. Meat and bone meal is a by-product obtained from the rendering industry after a process of cooking ground mammal carcasses, removing fat, and drying [48]. The rendering process includes a heat step that kills microorganisms; therefore, the survival of Salmonella is most unlikely after processing [49]. Rendered products and finished feed are most likely to be contaminated with Salmonella from rodents and fomites within the processing plants and feed mills [50] or during storage or transportation to other locations. Salmonella can survive for long periods in dried products, such as animal feed [51]. A survey covering 1 year (2010) tested a variety of render and blender operations across the United States and Canada, showing that the contamination for Salmonella in the rendered animal meals produced in North America was 8% [49]. Therefore, special attention must be given to avoid recontamination during transportation, storage, handling, and distribution of this feed ingredient as well as other feed ingredients. It is essential to apply good hygiene practices in the feed mill environment to reduce the prevalence of Salmonella [52].

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, TPC provided greater buffer capacity for neutral pH compared to BPW. Manufactured feed samples (post mixing, post cooling, pellet loadout, and mash loadout), wheat middlings, peanut meal, and soybean meal experienced a pH drop after 24 h of incubation of at least 17 to 32%. Three Salmonella isolates were recovered from meat and bone meal samples using pre-enrichment BPW, compared to one in TPC. Further research of feed inoculated with a known Salmonella strain and concentration and assayed with pre-enrichment TPC and BPW is necessary to determine their efficacy in recovering Salmonella.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.E., R.J.B. and K.S.M.; data curation, C.E.; formal analysis, C.E.; investigation, C.E., L.R.M., M.A.B., J.T.K. and K.S.M.; writing—original draft, C.E.; writing—review and editing, M.A.B., W.J.P., R.H., R.J.B. and K.S.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was partially funded by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Agricultural Research Services (ARS), Athens, GA; Project Number: 6040-32000-069-01-S.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to Ken Macklin for the support, Wilmer Pacheco for help with obtaining samples, R. Jeff Buhr for revisions, and Macklin’s lab for help in processing the samples, and the feed mills involved.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bissonnette, G.K.; Jezeski, J.J.; McFeters, G.A.; Stuart, D. Influence of Environmental Stress on Enumeration of Indicator Bacteria from Natural Waters. Appl. Microbiol. 1975, 29, 186–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Clark, C.W.; Ordal, Z.J. Thermal Injury and Recovery of Salmonella typhimurium and Its Effect on Enumeration Procedures. Appl. Microbiol. 1969, 18, 332–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ray, B.; Jezeski, J.J.; Busta, F.F. Effect of Rehydration on Recovery, Repair, and Growth of Injured Freeze-Dried Salmonella anatum. Appl. Microbiol. 1971, 22, 184–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ray, B.; Speck, M.L. Enumeration of Escherichia coli in Frozen Samples after Recovery from Injury. Appl. Microbiol. 1973, 25, 499–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Foster, J.W. Low pH Adaptation and the Acid Tolerance Response of Salmonella typhimurium. Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 1995, 21, 215–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. D’Aoust, J.Y. Update on Preenrichment and Selective Enrichment Conditions for Detection of Salmonella in Foods. J. Food Prot. 1981, 44, 369–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. North, W.R., Jr. Lactose Pre-enrichment Method for Isolation of Salmonella from Dried Egg Albumin: Its Use in a Survey of Commercially Produced Albumen. Appl. Microbiol. 1961, 9, 188–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. HiMedia Laboratories. Technical Data, Buffered Peptone Water, M614. Available online: https://himedialabs.com/TD/M614.pdf (accessed on 15 August 2023).
  9. Jay, J.M. Foodborne Gastroenteritis Caused by Salmonella and Shigella. In Modern Food Microbiology; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1998; pp. 507–526. ISBN 978-1-4615-7476-7. [Google Scholar]
  10. Li, H.; Wang, H.; D’Aoust, J.Y.; Maurer, J. Salmonella Species. In Food Microbiology: Fundamentals and Frontiers, 4th ed.; Doyle, M.P., Buchanan, R.L., Eds.; ASM Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2012; pp. 223–261. ISBN 9781683670582. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bhunia, A.K. Salmonella enterica. In Foodborne Microbial Pathogens, 2nd ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 271–287. ISBN 9781493973491. [Google Scholar]
  12. Cox, N.A.; Bailey, J.S.; Thomson, J.E.; Juven, B.J. Salmonella and Other Enterobacteriaceae Found in Commercial Poultry Feed. Poult. Sci. 1983, 62, 2169–2175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Quinn, C.; Ward, J.; Griffin, M.; Yearsley, D.; Egan, J. A Comparison of Conventional Culture and Three Rapid Methods for the Detection of Salmonella in Poultry Feeds and Environmental Samples. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 1995, 20, 89–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Veldman, A.; Vahl, H.; Borggreve, G.J.; Fuller, D.C. A Survey of the Incidence of Salmonella Species and Enterobacteriaceae in Poultry Feeds and Feed Components. Vet. Rec. 1995, 136, 169–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Davies, R.H.; Wray, C. Persistence of Salmonella enteritidis in Poultry Units and Poultry Food. Br. Poult. Sci. 1996, 37, 589–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Heyndrickx, M.; Vandekerchove, D.; Herman, L.; Rollier, I.; Grijspeerdt, K.; De Zutter, L. Routes for Salmonella Contamination of Poultry Meat: Epidemiological Study from Hatchery to Slaughterhouse. Epidemiol. Infect. 2002, 129, 253–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Munoz, L.R.; Pacheco, W.J.; Hauck, R.; Macklin, K.S. Evaluation of Commercially Manufactured Animal Feeds to Determine Presence of Salmonella, Escherichia coli, and Clostridium perfringens. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2021, 30, 100142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Koyuncu, S.; Haggblom, P. A Comparative Study of Cultural Methods for the Detection of Salmonella in Feed and Feed Ingredients. BMC Vet. Res. 2009, 5, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Maciorowski, K.G.; Herrera, P.; Jones, F.T.; Pillai, S.D.; Ricke, S.C. Cultural and immunological detection methods for Salmonella spp. in animal feeds—A review. Vet. Res. Commun. 2006, 30, 127–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Cox, N.A.; Burdick, D.; Bailey, J.S.; Thomson, J.E. Effect of the steam conditioning and pelleting process on the microbiology and quality of commercial-type poultry feeds. Poult. Sci. 1986, 65, 704–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Dunkley, K.D.; Callaway, T.R.; Chalova, V.I.; McReynolds, J.L.; Hume, M.E.; Dunkley, C.S.; Kubena, L.F.; Nisbet, D.J.; Ricke, S.C. Foodborne Salmonella ecology in the avian gastrointestinal tract. Anaerobe 2009, 15, 26–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Richardson, K.E.; Cox, N.A.; Cosby, D.E.; Berrang, M.E.; Holcombe, N.L.; Weller, C.E. Dry and Heat Stress Affects H2S Production of Salmonella on Selective Plating Media. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part B 2019, 54, 313–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Blankenship, L.C. Some characteristics of acid injury and recovery of Salmonella bareilly in a model system. J. Food Prot. 1981, 44, 73–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Kuijpers, A.F.; Mooijman, K.A. Detection of Salmonella in Food, Feed and Veterinary Samples by EU Laboratories. Food Res. Int. 2012, 45, 885–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Mooijman, K.A. The New ISO 6579-1: A Real Horizontal Standard for Detection of Salmonella, at Last! Food Microbiol. 2018, 71, 2–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Berrang, M.E.; Cosby, D.E.; Cox, N.A.; Cason, J.A.; Richardson, K.E. Optimizing Buffering Chemistry to Maintain Near Neutral pH of Broiler Feed during Pre-enrichment for Salmonella. Poult. Sci. 2015, 94, 3048–3051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Richardson, K.E.; Cosby, D.E.; Berrang, M.E.; Cox, N.A.; Clay, S.M.; Weller, C.; Holcombe, J. Evaluation of the Tris Phosphate Carbonate Salmonella Pre-enrichment Medium for Poultry Feed and Feed Ingredients. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2021, 30, 100104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Cox, N.A.; Cason, J.A.; Buhr, R.J.; Richardson, K.E.; Richardson, L.J.; Rigsby, L.L.; Fedorka-Cray, P.J. Variations in Preenrichment pH of Poultry Feed and Feed Ingredients after Incubation Periods up to 48 Hours. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2013, 22, 190–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Cromwell, G.L.; Cline, T.R.; Crenshaw, J.D.; Crenshaw, T.D.; Easter, R.A.; Ewan, R.C.; Hamilton, C.R.; Hill, G.M.; Lewis, A.J.; Mahan, D.C.; et al. Variability among Sources and Laboratories in Analyses of Wheat Middlings. J. Anim. Sci. 2000, 78, 2652–2658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Belyea, R.L.; Rausch, K.D.; Clevenger, T.E.; Singh, V.; Johnston, D.B.; Tumbleson, M.E. Sources of Variation in Composition of DDGS. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2010, 159, 122–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Rausch, K.D.; Belyea, R.L. The Future of Coproducts from Corn Processing. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2006, 128, 47–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Poore, M.H.; Johns, J.T.; Burris, W.R. Soybean Hulls, Wheat Middlings, and Corn Gluten Feed as Supplements for Cattle on Forage-Based Diets. Vet. Clin. Food Anim. Pract. 2002, 18, 213–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. ZoBell, D.R.; Goonewardene, L.A.; Olson, K.C.; Stonecipher, C.A.; Wiedmeier, R.D. Effects of Feeding Wheat Middlings on Production, Digestibility, Ruminal Fermentation, and Carcass Characteristics in Beef Cattle. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2003, 83, 551–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Batal, A.; Dale, N.; Café, M. Nutrient Composition of Peanut Meal. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2005, 14, 254–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Dozier, W.A., III; Hess, J.B. Soybean Meal Quality and Analytical Techniques. In Soybean and Nutrition; El-Shemy, H., Ed.; InTech: Rijeka, Croatia, 2011; pp. 111–124. [Google Scholar]
  36. Huss, A.; Cochrane, R.; Jones, C.; Atungulu, G.G. Physical and Chemical Methods for the Reduction of Biological Hazards in Animal Feeds. In Food and Feed Safety Systems and Analysis; Ricke, S.C., Atungulu, G.G., Rainwater, C., Park, S.H., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018; pp. 83–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Müller, V. Bacterial Fermentation. In Encyclopedia of Life Sciences; John Wiley & Sons: Oxford, UK, 2001; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Abd El-Hack, M.E.; Mahrose, K.M.; Attia, F.A.M.; Swelum, A.A.; Taha, A.E.; Shewita, R.S.; Hussein, E.-S.O.S.; Alowaimer, A.N. Laying Performance, Physical, and Internal Egg Quality Criteria of Hens Fed Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles and Exogenous Enzyme Mixture. Animals 2019, 9, 150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Lamsal, B.P.; Pathirapong, P.; Rakshit, S. Microbial Growth and Modification of Corn Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles during Fermentation. Ind. Crops Prod. 2012, 37, 553–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Vicuna, R. Bacterial Degradation of Lignin. Enzym. Microb. Technol. 1988, 10, 646–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Iram, A.; Cekmecelioglu, D.; Demirci, A. Distillers’ Dried Grains with Solubles (DDGS) and Its Potential as Fermentation Feedstock. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2020, 104, 6115–6128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Wu, H.; Meng, Q.; Yu, Z. Effect of pH Buffering Capacity and Sources of Dietary Sulfur on Rumen Fermentation, Sulfide Production, Methane Production, Sulfate Reducing Bacteria, and Total Archaea in In Vitro Rumen Cultures. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 186, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Wang, L.; Zhou, J.; Sun, Y.; Wang, W. Transient Bacteria Removal by Concentrated Sulfuric Acid for Cell Pollution. J. Biochem. Biophy. 2018, 2, 103. [Google Scholar]
  44. Clemente-Carazo, M.; Leal, J.J.; Huertas, J.P.; Garre, A.; Palop, A.; Periago, P.M. The Different Response to an Acid Shock of Two Salmonella Strains Marks Their Resistance to Thermal Treatments. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 691248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kallapura, G.; Kogut, M.H.; Morgan, M.J.; Pumford, N.R.; Bielke, L.R.; Wolfenden, A.D.; Faulkner, O.B.; Latorre, J.D.; Menconi, A.; Hernandez-Velasco, X.; et al. Fate of Salmonella Senftenberg in Broiler Chickens Evaluated by Challenge Experiments. Avian Pathol. 2014, 43, 305–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Kamble, N.M.; Lee, J.H. Characterization and Evaluation of a Salmonella enterica Serotype Senftenberg Mutant Created by Deletion of Virulence-Related Genes for Use as a Live Attenuated Vaccine. Clin. Vaccine Immunol. 2016, 23, 802–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Myoujin, Y.; Yona, R.; Umiji, S.; Tanimoto, T.; Otsuki, K.; Murase, T. Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica Serovar Agona Infections in Commercial Pheasant Flocks. Avian Pathol. 2003, 32, 355–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Cascarosa, E.; Gea, G.; Arauzo, J. Thermochemical Processing of Meat and Bone Meal: A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 942–957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Jiang, X. Prevalence and Characterization of Salmonella in Animal Meals Collected from Rendering Operations. J. Food Prot. 2016, 79, 1026–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Fedorka-Cray, P.J.; Hogg, A.; Gray, J.T.; Lorenzen, K.; Velasquez, J.; Von Behren, P. Feed and Feed Trucks as Sources of Salmonella Contamination in Swine. J. Swine Health Prod. 1997, 5, 189–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Beuchat, L.R.; Komitopoulou, E.; Beckers, H.; Betts, R.P.; Bourdichon, F.; Fanning, S.; Joosten, H.M.; Ter Kuile, B.H. Low-Water Activity Foods: Increased Concern as Vehicles of Foodborne Pathogens. J. Food Prot. 2013, 76, 150–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Parker, E.M.; Parker, A.J.; Short, G.; O’Connor, A.M.; Wittum, T.E. Salmonella Detection in Commercially Prepared Livestock Feed and the Raw Ingredients and Equipment Used to Manufacture the Feed: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Prev. Vet. Med. 2022, 198, 105546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Types of feed samples collected in different feed mills.
Table 1. Types of feed samples collected in different feed mills.
Feed MillType of Feed MillStateType of Feed SampleNo. of Samples
APigs, IntegratorOKGround corn10
Wheat middlings10
Post mixing10
Post cooling10
Pellet loadout10
BBroilers, IntegratorMSGround corn8
CPigs, Toll MillIAGround corn10
DDGS 110
Post mixing10
Mash loadout8
DPigs, Toll MillIAGround corn10
DDGS 110
Post mixing10
Mash loadout10
EResearch and Education (R&E)ALGround corn14
DDGS 114
Poultry by-product meal14
Meat and bone meal7
Peanut meal7
Post mixing14
Post cooling14
Pellet loadout14
FPigs, Toll MillILGround corn7
DDGS 17
Soybean meal7
Mash loadout14
1 Distiller’s dried grains with solubles (DDGS).
Table 2. Tris phosphate carbonate (TPC) formula.
Table 2. Tris phosphate carbonate (TPC) formula.
TPC FormulaBrandAmount (1 L)
PeptoneBD Bacto, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA10 g (1%)
NaCl (sodium chloride)VWR Chemicals, Fountain Pkwy, OH, USA5 g (0.085 M)
Na2HPO4 (disodium phosphate)VWR Chemicals, Fountain Pkwy, OH, USA3 g (25 mM)
NaHPO4 (sodium phosphate)Fisher Scientific, Fair Lawn, NJ, USA1.5 g (11 mM)
Na2CO3 (sodium carbonate)Fisher Scientific, Fair Lawn, NJ, USA4.2 g (50 mM)
1 M Tris, pH 8.0VWR Chemicals, Fountain Pkwy, OH, USA100 mL (100 mM)
H2O-ad 1000 mL
Adapted from [26].
Table 3. Mean separation of pH values by feed type using pre-enrichment media TPC and BPW.
Table 3. Mean separation of pH values by feed type using pre-enrichment media TPC and BPW.
Feed TypeNo. of SamplesTPC (pH)BPW (pH)
Initial S.E. 2FinalS.E. 2Initial S.E. 2Final S.E. 2
Ground corn598.03 a0.027.14 b0.047.05 a0.026.01 ab0.05
DDGS 1416.98 d0.026.91 cd0.055.81d0.035.90 bc0.06
Poultry by-product meal147.60 c0.047.14 bc0.086.54 c0.056.22 ab0.1
Wheat middlings107.94 ab0.056.57 ef0.097.09 a0.065.15 d0.12
Meat and bone meal77.85 ab0.067.77 a0.116.96 ab0.076.45 a0.15
Peanut meal78.04 a0.065.75 g0.116.92 ab0.074.68 d0.15
Soybean meal77.93 ab0.065.59 g0.116.99 ab0.074.86 d0.15
Post mixing447.99 a0.026.54 f0.046.91 ab0.035.69 c0.06
Mash loadout327.78 b0.036.80 de0.056.82 b0.035.93 abc0.07
Post cooling248.04 a0.036.39 f0.066.92 ab0.045.11 d0.08
Pellet loadout248.02 a0.036.23 f0.066.87 ab0.045.05 d0.08
p-value <0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001
a–g Values in columns with different superscripts are significantly different from each other (p < 0.05). 1 DDGS (distiller’s dried grains with solubles). 2 Standard error.
Table 4. Dependent t-test for the pH difference before and after incubation (24 h) of feed ingredients and finished feed using pre-enrichment media TPC and BPW.
Table 4. Dependent t-test for the pH difference before and after incubation (24 h) of feed ingredients and finished feed using pre-enrichment media TPC and BPW.
Type of SampleNo. of SamplesTPC (pH)BPW (pH)
InitialFinalI − F (%) 1S.E. 2p-ValueInitialFinalI − F (%) 1S.E. 2p-Value
Ground corn598.03 *7.14 *11.11%0.03<0.00017.05 *6.01 *14.64%0.07<0.0001
DDGS 3416.986.911.01%0.040.0765.815.90−1.55%0.060.164
Poultry by-product meal147.60 *7.14 *6.08%0.06<0.00016.54 *6.22 *4.89%0.02<0.0001
Wheat middlings107.94 *6.57 *17.25%0.06<0.00017.09 *5.15 *27.40%0.06<0.0001
Meat and bone meal77.85 *7.77 *1.06%0.020.0046.96 *6.45 *7.33%0.03<0.0001
Peanut meal78.04 *5.75 *28.46%0.13<0.00016.92 *4.68 *32.36%0.16<0.0001
Soybean meal77.93 *5.59 *29.48%0.13<0.00016.99 *4.86 *30.46%0.09<0.0001
Post mixing447.99 *6.54 *18.20%0.03<0.00016.91 *5.69 *17.68%0.06<0.0001
Mash loadout327.78 *6.80 *12.55%0.11<0.00016.82 *5.93 *13.03%0.09<0.0001
Post cooling248.04 *6.39 *20.52%0.05<0.00016.92 *5.11 *26.18%0.03<0.0001
Pellet loadout248.02 *6.23 *22.22%0.06<0.00016.87 *5.05 *26.49%0.05<0.0001
* The means of the two sets of pH values with an asterisk are significantly different from each other (p < 0.05). 1 I − F (%): Difference (initial minus final) of initial and final mean values (pH) expressed as a percentage of the initial value. 2 Standard error. 3 Distiller’s dried grains with solubles (DDGS).
Table 5. Salmonella isolates recovered using pre-enrichment TPC and BPW.
Table 5. Salmonella isolates recovered using pre-enrichment TPC and BPW.
SampleP.E. 1pHAgglutination TestSerotype
InitialFinalPolyGroup
Meat and bone mealBPW6.896.4AC1Oranienburg
BPW6.896.45BESenftenberg
BPW7.096.42ABAgona
Meat and bone mealTPC7.87.78AC1Infantis
1 Pre-enrichment.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Escobar, C.; Munoz, L.R.; Bailey, M.A.; Krehling, J.T.; Pacheco, W.J.; Hauck, R.; Buhr, R.J.; Macklin, K.S. Buffering Capacity Comparison of Tris Phosphate Carbonate and Buffered Peptone Water Salmonella Pre-Enrichments for Manufactured Feed and Feed Ingredients. Animals 2023, 13, 3119. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13193119

AMA Style

Escobar C, Munoz LR, Bailey MA, Krehling JT, Pacheco WJ, Hauck R, Buhr RJ, Macklin KS. Buffering Capacity Comparison of Tris Phosphate Carbonate and Buffered Peptone Water Salmonella Pre-Enrichments for Manufactured Feed and Feed Ingredients. Animals. 2023; 13(19):3119. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13193119

Chicago/Turabian Style

Escobar, Cesar, Luis R. Munoz, Matthew A. Bailey, James T. Krehling, Wilmer J. Pacheco, Rüdiger Hauck, Richard J. Buhr, and Kenneth S. Macklin. 2023. "Buffering Capacity Comparison of Tris Phosphate Carbonate and Buffered Peptone Water Salmonella Pre-Enrichments for Manufactured Feed and Feed Ingredients" Animals 13, no. 19: 3119. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13193119

APA Style

Escobar, C., Munoz, L. R., Bailey, M. A., Krehling, J. T., Pacheco, W. J., Hauck, R., Buhr, R. J., & Macklin, K. S. (2023). Buffering Capacity Comparison of Tris Phosphate Carbonate and Buffered Peptone Water Salmonella Pre-Enrichments for Manufactured Feed and Feed Ingredients. Animals, 13(19), 3119. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13193119

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop